ä¸‹è¼‰å ¨æ›¸ - The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Susan Gano-Phillips, Affective Learning in General Education 21
In fact, some of the largest challenges posed by affective learning relate
to the assessment of affective ILOs. Even when ILOs have been clearly
specified and any of a wide variety of aligned teaching and learning methods
(TLAs) have been employed to promote the achievement of these outcomes,
the assessment of affective learning outcomes requires creativity and, often,
new learning on the part of faculty. This is because affective learning, unlike
cognitive or psychomotor learning, cannot always be measured in direct ways.
Instead, it may be instructive to think of the assessment of affective learning
as occurring in two broad categories: direct assessments (similar to those
for cognitive and psychomotor learning outcomes) and indirect assessments.
Direct assessment involves examining samples of the direct work output of
students, such as their performance in answering examination questions, in
making a speech, or in mastering a clinical skill like venipuncture. Indirect
assessment, on the other hand, refers to gathering information about student
learning by looking at indicators of learning other than direct student work
output. Indirect assessments are quite diverse and can include a wide variety
of measures such as surveys, exit interviews, employer ratings, focus groups,
or even reflective writing. Indirect assessments predominate in the affective
learning domain. However, both direct and indirect assessments of affective
learning outcomes are considered below.
Direct Assessment of Affective Learning Outcomes
The direct assessment of affective learning outcomes is most common at
the lower levels in the affective learning taxonomy of Krathwohl et al. (1964).
Some affective outcomes are written at a level where a direct assessment
of behavior can provide evidence of the achievement of the affective ILOs.
Instructors can, for example, take attendance to quantify the willingness of